Skip to main content
Glama
hdmt
by hdmt

get_email

Retrieve detailed information about a specific marketing email from HubSpot using its unique email ID.

Instructions

特定のメールの詳細情報を取得

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailIdYesメールID

Implementation Reference

  • The MCP tool handler for 'get_email' that validates arguments using GetEmailSchema and calls the HubSpotClient.getEmail() method to fetch email details
    case 'get_email': {
      const args = GetEmailSchema.parse(request.params.arguments);
      const result = await this.hubspot.getEmail(args.emailId);
      return {
        content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }],
      };
    }
  • Zod schema definition for get_email tool input validation, requiring an emailId string parameter
    export const GetEmailSchema = z.object({
      emailId: z.string(),
    });
  • src/server.ts:52-62 (registration)
    Tool registration in the MCP server's tool list, defining the name, description, and input schema for the get_email tool
    {
      name: 'get_email',
      description: '特定のメールの詳細情報を取得',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          emailId: { type: 'string', description: 'メールID' },
        },
        required: ['emailId'],
      },
    },
  • The HubSpotClient.getEmail() method that makes the actual API call to HubSpot's marketing/v3/emails endpoint to fetch email details by ID
    async getEmail(emailId: string) {
      return this.request(`/marketing/v3/emails/${emailId}`);
    }
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation ('取得'), which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the email ID is invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient Japanese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what '詳細情報' (detailed information) includes, the response format, error handling, or authentication needs. Given the lack of structured fields to compensate, the description should provide more complete context about the tool's behavior and outputs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'emailId' clearly documented in the schema as 'メールID'. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what the schema provides - it doesn't explain where to find email IDs, their format, or validation rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('取得' - get/retrieve) and the resource ('特定のメールの詳細情報' - specific email's detailed information). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_emails' (which lists multiple emails) and 'create_draft_email' (which creates new emails). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what constitutes 'detailed information' beyond the basic email content.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_emails' or 'update_email'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an email ID), use cases (e.g., viewing full email content after listing), or exclusions (e.g., not for modifying emails). The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling context alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/hdmt/hubspot-email-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server